Statutory authority and communicated sanction requirements barred unlawful search, seizure, and retention of seized tax records.

Officers transferred from the statutory tax hierarchy to an executive Bureau ceased to be competent authorities under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, so a search and seizure conducted by such an officer was without jurisdiction. Continued retention of seized books beyond 21 days under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules required a written sanction that was communicated to the affected party; an uncommunicated sanction was ineffective and could not validate retention. The retained books were therefore held to have been kept unlawfully, and the reasoning emphasised that statutory powers and rights-affecting sanctions must be traceable to the Act and properly brought into effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bureau of Investigation and its officers, after their appointment in the Bureau, continued to be officers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 competent to exercise powers of search and seizure under the Act. (ii) Whether the continued retention of seized books of account beyond 21 days was valid in the absence of a communicated sanction under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the Bureau of Investigation and its officers, after their appointment in the Bureau, continued to be officers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 competent to exercise powers of search and seizure under the Act.

Analysis: The Bureau was constituted by executive notification under the State's executive power and was not itself created by the Act. The statutory scheme of the Act required persons exercising powers under it to be appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner and remain under his administrative control. The notifications showed that the relevant officers had been released from their posts in the Commercial Tax Directorate and appointed to new posts in the Bureau. Once so appointed, they no longer remained officers of the statutory hierarchy created under the Act, and therefore could not validly exercise the delegated power of search and seizure under section 14(3).

Conclusion: The officers stationed in the Bureau had ceased to be competent statutory authorities under the Act, and the seizure made by the officer of the Bureau was illegal and without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the continued retention of seized books of account beyond 21 days was valid in the absence of a communicated sanction under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules.

Analysis: Under rule 70, books seized by an Inspector or Commercial Tax Officer could not be retained beyond 21 days without written sanction. The sanction, if granted, operated as an order affecting rights and was capable of revision under the Act. Such an order had to be communicated to the affected party to become effective; otherwise the statutory remedy of revision would be rendered illusory. Since no valid communicated sanction was shown, the continued retention after expiry of 21 days was unauthorised.

Conclusion: The retention of the seized books beyond 21 days without communicated sanction was illegal and without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on both grounds, and the respondents were directed to return the seized books and records to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Officers transferred out of the statutory cadre and posted in a separate executive bureau cease to be authorities under the Act, and any sanction authorising continued retention of seized property must be communicated to the affected person to become effective.

---